Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How can one read what I said and even come close to thinking I am a KJV-onlyist?
why should anyone trust your comments on 1 John 5:7. You have obviously heard only part of the information on there on that verse.
We've all seen the bible translation comparison charts, and often times the New American Standard Version (NASB) is far if not the furthest toward the "Word for Word" or literal side of the bible translation spectrum among the modern versions. What I've often found is while reading the NASB, in it's footnotes they have "Lit" renderings of certain words and passages. I then compare with a different translation such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV/RSV, and often times those actually render such words within the text itself. One example is Genesis 4:1 in reference to Adam and Eve where the NASB renders it as: "Now the man had relations with his wife Eve," footnotes "had relations with" as "Lit. knew". Translations such as the NKJV and ESV have it right in the text as "knew". Other examples can be found in this article.
My question is: When it is popularly suggested that the NASB is the "most" literal, are they taking into account and is it because of it's footnotes (what if we were comparing text-only/readers' edition/pew bibles)? Are these differences minor in comparison to the other ways NASB more literally renders other passages? Am I simply just understanding the terms "literally" and "word for word" incorrectly? How do you rate it's literalness among other modern translations? I look forward to all of your input.
Thanks did not know that.The NASB is currently undergoing a revision with emphasis on the OT.
We've all seen the bible translation comparison charts, and often times the New American Standard Version (NASB) is far if not the furthest toward the "Word for Word" or literal side of the bible translation spectrum among the modern versions. What I've often found is while reading the NASB, in it's footnotes they have "Lit" renderings of certain words and passages. I then compare with a different translation such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV/RSV, and often times those actually render such words within the text itself. One example is Genesis 4:1 in reference to Adam and Eve where the NASB renders it as: "Now the man had relations with his wife Eve," footnotes "had relations with" as "Lit. knew". Translations such as the NKJV and ESV have it right in the text as "knew". Other examples can be found in this article.
My question is: When it is popularly suggested that the NASB is the "most" literal, are they taking into account and is it because of it's footnotes (what if we were comparing text-only/readers' edition/pew bibles)? Are these differences minor in comparison to the other ways NASB more literally renders other passages? Am I simply just understanding the terms "literally" and "word for word" incorrectly? How do you rate it's literalness among other modern translations? I look forward to all of your input.
The LEB uses the Name as well.Given that the NASB does not say YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah/Yahovah I count the ASV as more direct or literal interpretation.
Actually the most literal word for word translation is “The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.”We've all seen the bible translation comparison charts, and often times the New American Standard Version (NASB) is far if not the furthest toward the "Word for Word" or literal side of the bible translation spectrum among the modern versions. What I've often found is while reading the NASB, in it's footnotes they have "Lit" renderings of certain words and passages. I then compare with a different translation such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV/RSV, and often times those actually render such words within the text itself. One example is Genesis 4:1 in reference to Adam and Eve where the NASB renders it as: "Now the man had relations with his wife Eve," footnotes "had relations with" as "Lit. knew". Translations such as the NKJV and ESV have it right in the text as "knew". Other examples can be found in this article.
My question is: When it is popularly suggested that the NASB is the "most" literal, are they taking into account and is it because of it's footnotes (what if we were comparing text-only/readers' edition/pew bibles)? Are these differences minor in comparison to the other ways NASB more literally renders other passages? Am I simply just understanding the terms "literally" and "word for word" incorrectly? How do you rate it's literalness among other modern translations? I look forward to all of your input.
For a translation to be literal, it needs to convey the exact meaning of the text.
Meaning matters.
Well let’s take hell for example. In today’s meaning it’s a place of burning and punishment.Thanks for your input, you two.So would conveying the "meaning" of the original texts attribute to a particular translation being deemed "literal"? If so, why are translations such as the New Living Translation and Good News Translation are described as being instead "dynamic" when their goal seems to be (unless I'm mistaken) to do just that -- take the original Hebrew and Greek and translate them to the closest "meaning" it today's language? I invite any to respond or offer their opinion.
What leads you to this conclusion?Actually the most literal word for word translation is “The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.”
If you are comfortable with non-orthodox translators perhaps.All the other ones lack the same faithfulness to the original languages.
Probably because it is a Jehovah's Witness translation?Most don’t want to hear that or admit to it, but there it is.
Actually the most literal word for word translation is “The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.”
Thanks for your input, you two.So would conveying the "meaning" of the original texts attribute to a particular translation being deemed "literal"? If so, why are translations such as the New Living Translation and Good News Translation are described as being instead "dynamic" when their goal seems to be (unless I'm mistaken) to do just that -- take the original Hebrew and Greek and translate them to the closest "meaning" it today's language?
We still do not fully know exactly what every Greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic) word meant at the time and how it was meant to be used in the scripture passage.
There are differences regarding the unit of translation -- do you translate words, or phrases, or sentences?
And there are differences regarding how much interpretation gets done for the benefit of the reader. In 1 Corinthians 13:12, for example, there is the image of a tarnished bronze or silver hand-held mirror, unlike anything we use today.
In Greek, the passage reads: βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι (for now we see) δι’ ἐσόπτρου (via a mirror) ἐν αἰνίγματι (obscurely), τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον (but then, face to face) ...
The NKJV, NASB and ESV have: For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face (very literal, leaving it for the reader to puzzle out why a reflection would be dim).
The NIV and CSB have: For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror, but then face to face (semi-literal, but replacing the metaphor by a simile, and "obscurely" by "only a reflection," thus emphasising the non-reality of a reflection, which is the aspect that still holds true in modern mirrors).
The NLT has: Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity (not literal: giving more explanation of the mirror image, capturing part of the meaning of αἰνίγματι with "puzzling," but replacing the "face to face" image completely).
The Message has: We don’t yet see things clearly. We’re squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. But it won’t be long before the weather clears and the sun shines bright! We’ll see it all then, see it all as clearly as God sees us (a very, very loose translation: replacing the mirror image by a fog image, and expanding the passage, but still capturing the general gist).
That's basically your spectrum. Where you sit on it depends on your translation goals.
...it couldn't just be that the technical know-how for making mirrors kind of sucked in the 1st century as it compares with the mirror making of today, could it?
That was my exact point. Which is why I included a picture.
And because "mirror" means something different now than it did then, there's a tricky translation issue, which different versions address in different ways.
Please go back and read what I actually wrote.
Ah yes. I see that now. Your context was unclear to me at first, causing me to remain unreflective of your meaning.
...but, I might add, that with any of the translations, unless one knows some background information in addition to that of the text (in this case, of Paul's message), then we'll not quite "get" the drift of the original writer regardless of the version used.
We've all seen the bible translation comparison charts, and often times the New American Standard Version (NASB) is far if not the furthest toward the "Word for Word" or literal side of the bible translation spectrum among the modern versions. What I've often found is while reading the NASB, in it's footnotes they have "Lit" renderings of certain words and passages. I then compare with a different translation such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV/RSV, and often times those actually render such words within the text itself. One example is Genesis 4:1 in reference to Adam and Eve where the NASB renders it as: "Now the man had relations with his wife Eve," footnotes "had relations with" as "Lit. knew". Translations such as the NKJV and ESV have it right in the text as "knew". Other examples can be found in this article.
My question is: When it is popularly suggested that the NASB is the "most" literal, are they taking into account and is it because of it's footnotes (what if we were comparing text-only/readers' edition/pew bibles)? Are these differences minor in comparison to the other ways NASB more literally renders other passages? Am I simply just understanding the terms "literally" and "word for word" incorrectly? How do you rate it's literalness among other modern translations? I look forward to all of your input.
The most literal translation is doing what Jesus did.
That sounds pious. But none of us are going to be saving mankind by dying on the cross.
The most literal translation of what the Greek and Hebrew words of the Bible say is to express in English, as accurately as possible, what those words mean.
The most important words are those that tell us who Jesus is, and what Jesus did.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?